get_email_verification_jobReturns one verification job: its state, per-verdict counts and what it has billed. Poll until state is done. An errorCode of monthly_limit_reached means the allowance ran out and the remaining addresses came back unknown rather than missing — they are still in the results, marked, and were not billed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | The job ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses the monthly_limit_reached error semantics, what happens to remaining addresses, and that they are not billed. This is extra behavioral detail not present in annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with no filler: returns/payload, polling instruction, and a critical edge-case explanation. The most important content is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description covers what the response contains, how to use it (poll), and a non-obvious error case. For a one-parameter read tool, this is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and jobId is already documented as 'The job ID'; the description adds no new parameter-level detail. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description begins 'Returns one verification job' with a specific verb and resource, and immediately enumerates the payload (state, per-verdict counts, billed). The singular 'one' distinguishes it from list_email_verification_jobs and from the cancel/create siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The instruction 'Poll until state is done' tells the agent when to use the tool and how. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_email_verification_jobs, but the usage context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.